ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation

  • To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation
  • From: Michael Castello <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:36:05 -0700

Hello Mike,

I for one have NOT grown tired of his nor anyone else's email. I have been on 
boards with triple the amount of email to read through and a lot more strained 
relations. I think everyone is open to do as they please but once dialog stops 
we stop moving forward and fracture as a group.

Michael Castello
Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 10:10:49 AM, you wrote:

MR> We do not need to have an 'open comment' period in order to come to a BC
MR> position, which can be posted at our website at any time and then used to
MR> guide further policy development.

MR> If you have a problem with Alexa's statement, feel free to ask her about it.
MR> The Officers of the BC are not your employees, and I am certain that we are
MR> not going to investigate your pointless conspiracy theories.   Indeed I am
MR> quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read --
MR> this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired
MR> of your posts.

MR> Sincerely,
MR> Mike

MR> Mike Rodenbaugh
MR> Rodenbaugh Law
MR> 548 Market Street
MR> San Francisco, CA  94104
MR> +1.415.738.8087
MR> www.rodenbaugh.com

MR> -----Original Message-----
MR> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
MR> George Kirikos
MR> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:21 AM
MR> To: BC gnso
MR> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation

MR> Hello,

MR> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> One step at a time please.
>> This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so.
>> If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a
MR> different paper please.

MR> I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment
MR> period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement
MR> should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar
MR> separation is but one aspect.

MR> And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another
MR> constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say
MR> anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms
MR> doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party,
MR> demanding retractions, etc.

MR> But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of
MR> concern" in June:

MR> http://blog.pir.org/?p=363
MR> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_r
MR> egistrar_separation/

MR> (when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are
MR> the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of
MR> concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that
MR> Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position
MR> back in June?

MR> This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at
MR> the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC
MR> had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then
MR> they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink)

MR> So, to repeat:

MR> 1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of
MR> concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly.
MR> 2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the
MR> false statement that the BC had any position on the topic.

MR> Sincerely,

MR> George Kirikos
MR> 416-588-0269
MR> http://www.leap.com/

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy